Slashdot Mirror
Metropolitan Police To Target Online Hate Crime and Abuse (bbc.com)
A new team of specialist police officers is being set up to investigate online hate crimes, including abuse on Twitter and Facebook. The London-based hub will include a team of five officers who will support victims and identify online abuse, reports BBC. From the report: The two-year pilot will cost 1.7m pound and has received 452,000 pound from the Home Office, the London Mayor's office said. A spokesman said there was "no place for hate" in London and there would be a "zero tolerance" of online abuse. The team, which will be set up in the coming months, will identify the location of crimes and allocate them to the appropriate force. They will work with a team of volunteers. The Mayor's Office for Policing And Crime (Mopac) said social media "provides hate crime perpetrators with a veil of anonymity, making it harder to bring them to justice and potentially impacting on a larger number of people".
They will protect political correctness and leave the real victims by the wayside. Too bad it isn't politically correct to prosecute the extremists causing a disproportionate amount of hate speech and physical attacks.
I don't mean it as an insult, but as an actual statement. They are mentally ill, for real. Brainwashed and dangerously stupid.
. . . . on the INTERNET ??
That makes holding back the tide with a teaspoon look doable, in contrast. . . .
to waste tax payer money on shit that doesn't really matter because a vocal minority of butt hurt retards won't shut the fuck up and get on with their lives. Just sayin...
The thought police are coming. Be afraid.. Most people are for it. In fact they would have you locked up for daring to malign or ridicule the idea.
"Hate crime" Jeebus! Can somebody tell me why motivation makes a difference? They are just saying a crime of assault/murder is perfectly justifiable if the reasons are right and the perpetrator is "righteous". And "online abuse", a scandal created out of thin air to make censorship more palatable.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Officer, someone said a bad thing about me on teh interweb!
Imagine all the real crime that's going to go unaddressed while the police chase down jackasses on Twitter and Facebook.
"Yeah, we'd like to get an officer out to talk with you about your home invasion and attempted rape complaint, but HamDogg2251 just insulted SpecialSnowFlake4550 on Twitter, so we won't be able to come out until sometime next week."
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
As our prison system wasnt filled with enough criminals, we need thought criminals, people who point fingers, complainers, bullies, next door neighbors that we dont like etc. Lockem all up and GET OFF MY LAWN.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Moral Statute Machine:
Your repeated violation of the Verbal Morality Statute has caused me to notify the San Angeles Police Department. Please remain where you are for your reprimand.
Simon Phoenix:
I'm sorry to say that the world has become a pussy-whipped, Brady Bunch version of itself, run by a bunch of robed sissies.
I would guess this just a play for more money so a bunch of these guys can sit around surfing the internet pretending to look for offensive comments and get paid for it. Gotta check those porn sites for bad behaviour now.
Dyslexics Untie!
If people are out looking for something to be offended by they will inevitably find it. Why do otherwise civilized societies keep pandering to these butt hurt babies that can't avert their eyes from shit they don't like? My whole life I was told if I don't like something, don't do it, don't look at it, don't get involved. When the fuck did we change from that to "Ban it, delete it, get it out of the world."
I feel like I'm in the fucking Twilight Zone. We used to mock the nanny state.
Off the deep end.
It is impossible to legislate thought
It's also not necessary. Terrorizing the crimethinkers into silence is sufficient.
However, this will give the police even more powers to intrude into the lives of others.
That's fine
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
In light of recent events concerning Twitter and Facebooks censorship of unwanted conservative wrongthink, I have full confidence in our Bobbies that they will handle the job completely objective and unbiased.
I in particular do not expect any censorship of islam critical voices, particularly after nationwide child rape and trafficking scandals.
I certainly don't expect them to silence voices critical of the government, of the ultra-leftists such as SJWs or of 3rd wave feminists.
And of course I am looking forward to seeing all people held to equally high standards.
Now excuse me, I have an appointment at the vet's, apparently the floating bladder of my flying pig has a nasty infection.
Written or spoken word can be insult, defamation or ??
Hate crime seems to be a crime (deed) against a person or group - how is this possible with words?
If it's (a deed or fact) being reported/mentioned on some internet place, it is possibly worth pursuing by some police, but this seems to become a thought-police type thing. Where are the exact rules and regulations to get a hold of what is going on except politician/hype.
Is England going the Turkey way - wholesale locking up judges/journalists/soldiers without due process because of one mentally sick madman?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
The reality is that it is in use in China and works pretty well. Further, most of the people using it support it. The solution is a real ID system where the ID of posters is simple to check and that the users are aware that it is easy to check their ID.
Yes, there would be concerns to be addressed, such as protecting people from having their usage history published; however, it is not insurmountable. With th e sense of anonymity gone, most people would feel less free to act stupid.
Anybody got an email address for the London mayor's office? MOPAC? Any of these wankers?
I want to make their first investigation an easy one.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n 514 U.S. 334, 357 (1995),
"Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation—and their ideas from suppression—at the hand of an intolerant society. The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse."
I have nothing else to say but... f-ing twats.
You do have a right to stop someone from saying things that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening. This is not some kind of recent PC innovation, it goes back in the law for centuries.
You can sort this out with a Venn diagram. All threats are assholery, and all threats are illegal, but some assholerly is legal.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
well yeah, it is
EVERYONE knows that its "YO Mama"
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If it's like James Bond, they'll be taken prisoner in the first foreign country they visit and tortured to death. Unless they have any clever devices given them by Q, of course.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Yes, "radicalization" is a far more dangerous standard than "hate speech". To be a "radicalizer", you don't need to attack anyone or call for violence. All you really need to do is criticize government policy. Indeed, calling for an end to violence could get you arrested - if it's your government's violence.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
It does sound a lot but that 1.7mil covers more than just the wages.
There is probably all sorts of technology that needs procuring, police cars, buildings. Typically for every simoleon spent on wage, there is a simoleon need to be spent by the employer- things like taxes, and crap.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Why does that have to have a special name though? Plotting to kill someone - regardless of motive - should be illegal. Conspiracy to Murder or thereabouts (the exact charge name may vary by locale/jurisdiction).
Anything that should be a "hate crime" should also just be a regular crime with existing laws against it or it shouldn't be a crime at all. A "hate crime" is always either redundant or an unjust charge.
"People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
Fuck you, freedom of speech! That's just a lame concept the colonists threw around for a while. We're better than that!
And my stated reason for murdering both Person A and Person B was "I didn't like they way he looked," should the punishment be different? I should hope not.
But if Person B was a member of some racial minority and Person A was not, you would probably want to tack on some sort of racial hate crime even though my inner crazy criteria was "His left ear is bigger than his right, he must die."
And there's very little that someone hundreds of miles away from you can say over the internet that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening.
Someone in the same room with me, or standing in front of my house, saying "I'm going to punch you in the face for what you said!" is a true threat, the person has the imminent means and opportunity to carry it out. Someone in a different city tweeting "@tom_swiss I'm going to punch you in the face for what you said!" is not a threat. Their arms just aren't that long.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Why would a reasonable person believe that anything said by a stranger on the internet is threatening? I've never understood that. Trash talk is trash, learn to ignore it.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
China is a brutally oppressive totalitarian society. Copy nothing that they do. Any time you find yourself recommending that that we copy something the Chinese government does? That's how you know you've gone off the rails.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
That will go well. A good example why the police must be severely limited in what they are allowed to do, as otherwise they will turn into a gang of thugs that stomp hard on anything even slightly amiss in their eyes.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Offense is always taken, never given.
Oh, if I were to dox you, put a picture of your front door on a forum and say "I'm going to rape you, bitch," then I think you'd probably feel threatened.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Considering that all of the top Social Media sites used in the UK (http://wearesocial.com/uk/blog/2015/02/uks-top-social-networks) are based in the USA, such sites are subject to the laws and legal precedents of the USA. Yet that's not the point. In order to have the full benefits of free speech (a vibrant marketplace of ideas), you ought allow anonymity precisely because it lowers the barriers of entry for any on those ideas into the marketplace. China is still under the control of the communist party, which explicitly suppresses competing ideas because the endanger the party narrative, not because they care about protecting the vanity of teen girls that can't handle people telling them their hair is ugly. The truth is the Internet (defined as an end to end, peer to peer network) is and has been a great leveler of ideas, which is driving the elite of all nations to look for any excuse to gain a greater control of it.
Nope - unless I knew you. The odds of an anonymous stranger somewhere in the world flying to where I live just to do me harm are quite small. I'll accept that risk alongside lightning and meteor strikes. It's not a credible threat, as the police have repeatedly had to tell SJWs.
If I were a politician, it would be different. If the threat was to do something that could be done remotely to harm me, that might be different. That's why you hear about commentators getting SWATed, but not raped. And even then, I'd expect someone out to harm me would just do it, not threaten.
Threats in person are different in kind, because it's how most humans "work up to" violence. Heck, even armies until post-WWII would do this on battlefields. Sane people want to win the confrontation, by scaring the other guy off, with violence only if your best threats don't work. So in-person threats are serious, because that's so often how the violence starts.
Doxxing in general should be its own crime, IMO, but not a very serious one.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.